State v. Bresson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 167 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 172 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * We hold that the HGN test has been shown to be a reliable test, especially when used in conjunction with other field sobriety tests and an officer’s observations of a driver’s physical characteristics, in determining whether a person is under the influence of alcohol. * * * Thus the only requirement prior to admission is the officer’s knowledge of the test, his training, and his ability to interpret his observations. The admission of the results of the HGN test is no different from any other field sobriety test, such as finger-to-nose, walk-and-turn, or one-leg stand.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 129 , 554 N.E.2d 1330 .”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tallmadge v. Barker, 24414 (3-25-2009) · Mt. Vernon v. Seng, Unpublished Decision (5-31-2005)

2. ““(D)(4)(b) In any criminal prosecution or juvenile court proceeding for a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section, of a municipal ordinance relating to operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or alcohol and a drug of abuse, or of a municipal ordinance relating to operating a vehicle with a prohibited concentration of alcohol in the blood, breath, or urine, if a law enforcement officer has administered a field sobriety test to the operator of the vehicle involved in the violation and if it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the officer administered the test in substantial compliance with the testing standards for any reliable, credible and generally accepted field sobriety tests that were in effect at the time the tests were administered, including, but not limited to, any testing standards then in effect that were set by the national highway traffic safety administration, all of the following apply: “(i) The officer may testify concerning the results of the field sobriety test so administered. “(ü) The prosecution may introduce the results of the field sobriety test so administered as evidence in any proceeding in the criminal prosecution or juvenile court proceedings. “(in) If testimony is presented or evidence is introduced under Division (D)(4)(b)® or (ii) of this section and if the testimony or evidence is admissible under the Rules of Evidence, the court shall admit the testimony or evidence and the trier of fact sh”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hynde, Unpublished Decision (3-28-2005) · State v. Martin, Unpublished Decision (4-7-2005)

3. “rhythmic to-and-fro oscillation of the eyes[,]”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Martin, Unpublished Decision (4-7-2005) · Willoughby v. Wutchiett, Unpublished Decision (2-13-2004)